ai is stupid

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Proof-reading is smart. Double-checking is smart. Understanding that averages are weighted is smart.

So the AI mentioned some decades. Decades are much broader than ages.

It did not provide anything for you to assume those decades should be equal-weighted. When it mentioned those decades it mentioned them. It did not spew out vast quantities (one key connotation of "spew" ) or blurt them randomly in a spotty uncoordinated way (another key connotation of "spew" ). I think that you are approaching this with confirmation bias, as indicated by your use of "spew" in a pejorative way.

There may be many people, different numbers of people in those decades. Simply adding up the decades with no account for the number of their members is a very inadequate approximation or model of the reality.

Your result of 42.5 is not an indication of stupidity on the part of the AI. It is an indication of the inadequacy of your model. This is proven by the evidence quickly provided by other posters here.

If you want to make a case for "AI" being stupid, you have to dig up actual data, actual information and then process it in the way you ask an AI to process something. Rolling Stone magazine did the math.